Assess how far the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 has turned the Nagoya Protocol's ABS principle into workable and equitable procedures.

The Nagoya Protocol requires that benefits from genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (TK) be shared fairly and equitably with the communities that conserve them. The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 has made India's ABS regime largely workable for users, but only partly equitable for knowledge-holders.

Workable: procedures simplified

• Registration over permission: Indian applicants now obtain a Certificate of Registration (CoR) from the NBA instead of prior approval for IPR, with clearer approval pathways [1].
• Visible uptake: biodiversity-linked IPR filings have surged since the reform [1].
• Revenue realised: the NBA earned ₹21.26 crore through ABS in FY 2025–26 and ₹266 crore in total [2].
• Three-tier delivery: funds flow through the NBA, then State Biodiversity Boards, then Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). For example, ₹18.3 lakh went to BMCs in Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim [3].

Equitable: significant gaps

• Undefined exemption: users of "codified traditional knowledge" are exempt from benefit-sharing, but the Act does not define the term. A broad reading could exempt nearly all TK [4].
• PBR paradox: the Joint Parliamentary Committee warned that most AYUSH knowledge is already codified. It added that knowledge recorded in People's Biodiversity Registers may also count as codified, which would deny benefits to many local holders [5].
• Communities sidelined: benefit terms are now agreed between the applicant and the BMC, which the NBA represents. The Act has no prior informed consent mechanism for local communities, which may conflict with Nagoya [4].
• Judicial benchmark: in Divya Pharmacy vs Union of India (2018), the Uttarakhand High Court held that Nagoya's fair sharing centres on local and indigenous communities [4].
• Thin trickle-down: village-level releases look small next to cumulative receipts [2][3].

Overall, the Act has eased access more than it has secured sharing. Three steps would align it with Nagoya:

• define codified TK by the authoritative texts in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as the Committee recommended [5];
• restore community consent;
• publish BMC-level fund flows.

These steps would also meet the government's own "policy to practice" test of benefits actually delivered [6], and make ABS both workable and just.